Gnostic Church: Equality of Members

**Gnostic Church: Equality of Members**

In early Christian Gnostic communities, particularly within Valentinian circles, the concept of equality among members was a central principle, both in practice and theology. This equality was not only spiritual but was also reflected in the communal roles, social customs, and teachings on justice, as preserved in several early sources.

Tertullian, a church writer hostile to Gnosticism, provides indirect testimony of this egalitarian practice in his *Against the Valentinians* (chapter 1). Though writing critically, Tertullian reveals the inclusive and participatory nature of the Valentinian gatherings:

> “Today one man is bishop, and tomorrow another; the person who is a deacon today, tomorrow is a reader; the one who is a priest is a layman tomorrow. For even on the laity they impose the functions of priesthood.”

This rotation of responsibilities ensured that no rigid, hierarchical structure emerged among Valentinians. The leadership roles and duties circulated, emphasizing that spiritual authority came from knowledge, character, and participation, not fixed offices or titles. Tertullian’s complaint further notes the participation of women:

> “Even women could take the role of bishop, much to his horror.”

This affirmation of gender equality in spiritual practice was radical in its time, standing in sharp contrast to the developing Catholic model, where leadership was restricted to male clergy.

The philosophical basis for this equality was also articulated in the teachings of Epiphanes, son of the Gnostic teacher Carpocrates. His work *On Righteousness*, preserved by Clement of Alexandria in *Stromateis* III 6.1–9.3, offers a cosmological and moral argument for equality as the foundation of divine justice. Epiphanes writes:

> “The righteousness of God is a kind of sharing along with equality. There is equality in the heaven which is stretched out in all directions and contains the entire earth in its circle. The night reveals all the stars equally. The light of the sun, which is the cause of the daytime and the father of light, God pours out from above upon the earth in equal measure to all who have power to see.”

Here, equality is presented as a fundamental, observable aspect of creation itself — from the distribution of light and night to the equal exposure of all to the sun’s rays. It is a vision of divine justice rooted in natural order, which stands opposed to human social structures that create inequality.

Epiphanes continues:

> “For all see alike, since there is no distinction between rich and poor, people and governor, stupid and clever, female and male, free men and slaves. Even the irrational animals are not accorded any different treatment; but in just the same way God pours out from above sunlight equally upon all the animals.”

This radical egalitarianism rejects divisions of class, status, gender, or even species. For Epiphanes, God’s justice is manifest in its universal impartiality. Nature itself embodies this equality — from the growing of plants to the nourishment of animals.

Further, he emphasizes:

> “The Sun causes food to grow for all living beings alike; the universal justice is given to all equally. In this respect there is no difference between the species of oxen and particular oxen, between the species of pigs and particular pigs, between the species of sheep and particular sheep, and so with all the rest. In them universality is manifest in justice.”

This equality extends to birth and to the senses:

> “And for birth there is no written law; otherwise it would have been transcribed. All beings beget and give birth alike, having received by justice an innate equality. The Creator and father of all with his own justice appointed this, just as he gave equally the eye to all to enable them to see.”

The critique sharpens as Epiphanes contrasts this divine justice with human laws and customs that create inequality:

> “The ideas of Mine and Thine crept in through the laws which cause the earth, money, and even marriage no longer to bring forth fruit of common use. For God made vines for all to use in common, since they do not refuse the sparrow or the thief; and similarly wheat and other fruits.”

The possession of property, including marriage, is treated as a corruption of the original divine order:

> “But outlawed sharing and the vestiges of equality generated the thief of domestic animals and fruits. For man God made all things to be common property.”

Thus, human law is seen not as a means to justice but as a violator of it:

> “The laws could not punish men who were ignorant of them; they taught man to transgress. For particularity of the laws cut up and destroyed the universal equality of the divine law.”

In sexual ethics too, Epiphanes argued against exclusivity:

> “He brought the female to be with the male in common and in the same way united all the animals. He thus showed righteousness to be a universal sharing along with equality.”

The desire to possess, to privatize, is a symptom of fallen social customs:

> “And by the words Your neighbor's wife he says something even more ludicrous, since he forces what should be common property to be treated as private possession.”

In conclusion, both Tertullian’s testimony and Epiphanes’ philosophy illustrate how early Gnostic Christians rejected rigid, hierarchical social and religious structures in favor of radical equality, grounded in the natural order and divine justice. The Valentinian communities exemplified this in their shared leadership and inclusivity, while thinkers like Epiphanes provided the theological and cosmological justification for such practices.

---

Also known by the title "Concerning Justice", this text by Epiphanes, the son of the Gnostic teacher Carpocrates, is found in Clement of Alexandria, Stromaties, III 6,1-9,3.

On Righteousness

The rightousness of God is a kind of sharing along with equality. There is equality in the heaven which is stretched out in all directions and contains the entire earth in its circle. The night reveals all the stars equally. The light of the sun, which is the cause of the daytime and the father of light, God pours out from above upon the earth in equal measure to all who have power to see. For all see alike, since here is no distinction between rich and poor, people and governor, stupid and clever, female and male, free men and slaves. Even the irrational animals are not accorded any different treatment; but in just the same way God pours out from above sunlight equally upon all the animals. He establishes his justice to both good and bad by seeing that none is able to get more than his share and to deprive his neighbor, so that he has twice the light his neighbor has.

The Sun causes food to grow for all living beings alike; the universal justice is given to all equally. In this respect there is no difference between the species of oxen and particular oxen, between the species of pigs and particular pigs, between the species of sheep and particular sheep, and so with all the rest. In them universiality is manifest in justice. Furthermore all plants after their kind are sown equally in the earth. Common nourishment grows for all beasts which feed on the earth´s produce; to all it is alike. It is regulated by no law, but rather is harmoniously available to all through the gift of him who gave it and commanded it to grow.

And for birth there is no written law; otherwise it would have been transcribed. All beings beget and give birth alike, having received by justice an inate equality.The Creator and father of all with his own justice appointed this, just as he gave equally the eye to all to enable them to see. He did not make a distinction between female and male, rational and irrational, nor between anything else at all; rather he shared out sight equally and universially. It was given to all alike by a single command. As the laws could not punish men who were ignorant of them, they thaught man to transgress. For particularity of the laws cut up and destroyed the universal equality of the divine law...

The ideas of Mine and Thine crept in through the laws which cause the earth, money, and even marriage no longer to bring forth fruit of common use. For God made vines for all to use in common, since they do not refuse the sparrow or the thief; and similarly wheat and other fruits. But outlawed sharing and the vestiges of equality generated the thief of domestic animals and fruits. For man God made all things to be common property. He brought the female to be with the male in common and in the same way united all the animals. He thus showed rightousness to be a universal sharing along with equality. But those who have been born in this way have denied the sharing which is the corollary of their origin and say Let him who has taken one woman keep her, whereas all can share her, just as the other animals show us. With view to the permanence of the race, he has implanted in males a strong and ardent desire which neither law nor custom nor any other restraint is able to destroy. For it is God´s decree......

Consequently one must understand the saying You shall not desire as if the lawgiver was making a jest, to which he added the even more comic words Your neighbors goods. For he himself gave the desire to sustain the race orders that it is to be supposed, though he removes it from no other animals. And by the words Your neighbors wife he says something even more ludicrous, since he forces what should be common property to be treated as private posession.

Debunking the "Church of Love" Text Attributed to the Cathars

THE CHURCH OF LOVE

THE CHURCH OF LOVE - from a Cathar text of the year 1148. The Church of Love has no structure, only understanding. It has no members, only those who feel and know that they belong to it. It has no rivals, because it does not feed the spirit of competition. It has no ambition, it only seeks to serve. It knows no boundaries, because love has no boundaries. It is not limited to itself, it seeks to enrich all groups and all religions. It recognizes all the great teachings that have manifested the Truth of Love in all times. Those who belong to it practice the truth of love with all their beings. Who they are, they know. It does not seek to teach, but to be, for in that state of being it is able to give. Recognize the whole earth as a living being of which we are all part. Recognize that the time has come for a final turn, away from egocentricity, and for a voluntary return to unity. It does not make itself known loudly, but works in the domains of freedom of being. Greet all those who have enlightened the way of love and who have dedicated their lives to it. In their ranks there is neither hierarchy nor rigid organization because each one is equal to the other. It does not promise a reward, either in this life nor in the other, besides the joy of being and being in love. Its members are recognized for their works and for their being, and for their eyes; and for no other external sign other than support and fraternal embrace. They know neither fear nor shame,and their testimony will always be valuable, in good times as well as bad. The Church of Love has no secrets, no mystery or initiation other than a great understanding of the power of Love and the knowledge that, if desired, the world will change; but only if one changes oneself first. Those who feel that they are part of it, belong to it. They are all part of the Church of Love.

### Debunking the "Church of Love" Text Attributed to the Cathars

The text known as "The Church of Love," often attributed to the Cathars and dated to 1148, has gained popularity in various spiritual and esoteric circles. However, a thorough examination of historical evidence reveals that this attribution is unfounded. This document aims to clarify the origins of the text and demonstrate that it is not an authentic medieval Cathar writing.

#### 1. **Absence from Historical Records**

The Cathars, a Christian dualist movement prominent in 12th and 13th-century southern France, left behind a limited number of texts. Surviving Cathar writings include the "Cathar Ritual" and fragments of their theological teachings. Notably, there is no mention of a text resembling "The Church of Love" in these historical documents or in contemporary accounts of Cathar beliefs and practices. The earliest known references to "The Church of Love" text appear in the late 20th century, suggesting a much more recent origin.

#### 2. **Modern Origins of the Text**

Investigations into the provenance of "The Church of Love" text point to Colin Bloy, a British dowser and spiritual healer, as its likely author. In 1978, during a visit to Montségur—a site associated with the Cathar legacy—Bloy claimed to have received the text through spiritual inspiration. He later wrote down the "Proclamation of the Church of Love" in 1985, asserting that the words were not his own but were transmitted to him through mystical means. This account indicates that the text originated in the late 20th century, not in the 12th century as some claims suggest.

#### 3. **Anachronistic Language and Concepts**

The language and ideas expressed in "The Church of Love" text reflect contemporary spiritual and philosophical themes rather than medieval Cathar theology. Concepts such as non-competitiveness, the absence of hierarchy, and universal love align more closely with modern New Age thought than with the dualistic and ascetic beliefs of the Cathars. The Cathars held a strict dichotomy between the spiritual and material worlds, viewing the latter as inherently evil—a perspective not evident in the "Church of Love" text.

#### 4. **Lack of Scholarly Support**

Academic research on Catharism does not support the authenticity of "The Church of Love" text as a genuine Cathar document. Scholars specializing in medieval heresies and Cathar studies have not recognized this text in their analyses of Cathar literature. The absence of the text from scholarly discourse further undermines claims of its medieval origin.

#### 5. **Misinterpretation of Cathar Beliefs**

Attributing "The Church of Love" text to the Cathars involves a misrepresentation of their beliefs. The Cathars practiced a form of Christianity that emphasized spiritual purity, asceticism, and a rejection of the material world. Their theology was rooted in a dualistic worldview that saw the physical realm as the creation of an evil force. In contrast, "The Church of Love" text promotes an inclusive and affirmative view of the world, which is inconsistent with Cathar doctrine.

#### 6. **Conclusion**

The evidence indicates that "The Church of Love" text is not an authentic Cathar document from 1148 but rather a modern creation inspired by contemporary spiritual ideals. Its attribution to the Cathars lacks historical basis and reflects a romanticized reinterpretation of their legacy. While the text may offer meaningful insights for modern readers, it should not be considered a genuine artifact of medieval Catharism.

For further reading on Cathar beliefs and history, consider consulting reputable academic sources such as the Encyclopaedia Britannica's entry on the Cathari citeturn0search6 and scholarly works on medieval heresies. 

---

**“The Church of Love”: Why This Text Is Not Cathar**

The text popularly titled *“The Church of Love,”* which is often claimed to be a Cathar writing from the year 1148, has circulated widely among modern spiritual, New Age, and esoteric communities. While its message may resonate with contemporary ideals of peace, love, and unity, the claim that this document originated from the Cathars — a medieval Christian dualist movement — is historically inaccurate. In fact, this text does not align with Cathar teachings, cosmology, or their pronounced rejection of the Catholic Church. This document will explain why *“The Church of Love”* is a modern invention and demonstrate how it contradicts the actual theology and ideology of the Cathars.

### 1. **No Historical Evidence of the Text’s Existence**

First and foremost, there is no record of a text titled *“The Church of Love”* in any known Cathar manuscripts, rituals, or inquisitorial records from the 12th or 13th centuries. The surviving Cathar literature, such as *The Cathar Ritual* and fragments from interrogations of Cathar believers, make no mention of such a text or anything remotely resembling its ideas. If this document had existed in 1148, it would almost certainly have appeared in either Cathar writings, the records of the Catholic Inquisition, or medieval chronicles describing Catharism. Instead, *“The Church of Love”* appears only in modern sources, suggesting it was composed in the 20th century and falsely attributed to the Cathars to lend it an air of ancient mystery and authority.

### 2. **Modern Language, Ideas, and Tone**

The style, vocabulary, and values presented in this text reflect modern spiritual philosophy rather than medieval dualist Christianity. The language of inclusivity, universal love, non-competitiveness, and ecological awareness in phrases like *“Recognize the whole earth as a living being of which we are all part”* would have been entirely foreign to the Cathars. 

The Cathars were dualists. They believed in two opposing principles: a good, spiritual God and an evil, material creator (often identified with the god of the Old Testament). They taught that the material world was the product of the evil principle, a place of suffering and corruption. Far from embracing *“the whole earth as a living being,”* the Cathars rejected the material world and considered it something to escape. Their faith was not about unity with the physical world or finding joy within it, but rather achieving release from it through asceticism and spiritual purity.

### 3. **Contradiction of Cathar Rejection of Catholic and Worldly Religion**

Another issue is the text’s message of inter-religious harmony: *“It seeks to enrich all groups and all religions. It recognizes all the great teachings that have manifested the Truth of Love in all times.”* This is fundamentally incompatible with Cathar theology. 

The Cathars did not view all religious traditions as equally valid or valuable. They openly and actively rejected the Roman Catholic Church, condemning it as the *Church of the Evil God*, an institution that corrupted the message of Christ and perpetuated the evils of the material world. Cathar writings and testimonies from inquisitorial records make it clear that Cathars saw themselves in direct opposition to the Catholic hierarchy, sacraments, and priesthood, which they believed enslaved people to the material world.

The *“Church of Love”* text, on the other hand, promotes a message of universal acceptance without rivalry or condemnation. This is not how the Cathars operated or believed. They were a counter-Church, an alternative religious community set against what they saw as the corrupt church of the world.

### 4. **Absence of Dualism and Cathar Eschatology**

Cathar beliefs were fundamentally dualistic and eschatological. They believed in a sharp distinction between the physical and the spiritual, between good and evil, and between this world and the next. The text *“The Church of Love”* completely ignores this core teaching. 

Cathar doctrine taught that salvation involved the renunciation of the material world and the return of the immaterial spirit to the good God. This demanded strict ascetic practices, including vegetarianism, celibacy for the Perfecti (fully initiated Cathars), and the rejection of worldly pleasures and attachments. The Cathars believed in the *end of the world*, in which spirits would be freed from their material prisons. None of these concepts are present in *“The Church of Love”*. Instead, it presents a humanistic and optimistic message about transforming the world through love, which is utterly foreign to the Cathar worldview.

### 5. **Likely Modern Origins**

It is widely accepted by historians and researchers that this text originated in the 20th century. Many trace it to Colin Bloy, a British esoteric writer and healer, who claimed to have channeled this message in the 1970s. Though it draws loosely on romanticized ideas of medieval heresy and alternative spirituality, it bears no resemblance to genuine Cathar writings or medieval theology. The pseudo-historical dating to 1148 appears to be a modern fabrication designed to lend the text authenticity and ancient authority.

### **Conclusion**

*“The Church of Love”* is a modern creation falsely attributed to the Cathars. Its inclusive, world-affirming, and love-centered message directly contradicts the dualistic, ascetic, and world-rejecting teachings of the actual Cathar movement. It does not represent Cathar doctrine, theology, or their sharp rejection of the Catholic Church and the material world. While its message may be appealing to modern spiritual seekers, it should not be mistaken for authentic medieval Cathar thought.

---

Mary the Consoler the Gospel of Mary

---

**Mary the Consoler – The Gospel of Mary, Chapter 4–5**  

*Welcome to Pleroma Pathways apocalyptic and mystic Christianity where we explore esoteric and apocalyptic texts.*

The Gospel of Mary, a powerful text from the Nag Hammadi library, places Mary Magdalene in a role of spiritual leadership and strength rarely seen in canonical texts. In Chapters 4 and 5, we encounter a profound moment where Mary rises to console and inspire the other disciples after the departure of the Savior. This passage reveals both the inward dimension of the Kingdom and the spiritual maturity to which the disciples are called.

> **(4.33)** “When the Blessed One had said this, He greeted them all, saying, *Peace be with you. Receive my peace unto yourselves.*”

The Gospel opens with the risen Savior offering peace—an inner tranquility not dependent on external circumstances, but an abiding presence. This peace is meant to be received inwardly, indicating a spiritual condition, not merely an absence of conflict.

> **(4.34)** “*Beware that no one lead you astray saying ‘Lo here!’ or ‘Lo there!’ For the Son of Man is within you.*”

This declaration affirms a core Gnostic teaching: that salvation and divine presence are found within. The “Son of Man” is not merely a future eschatological figure, but a spiritual identity imprinted in the faithful. It recalls Luke 17:21: “The Kingdom of God is within you.” Here, Jesus warns against external authorities who claim exclusive access to truth. The inward journey is emphasized.

> **(4.35–36)** “*Follow after Him! Those who seek Him will find Him.*”

This is both a call to discipleship and to inner awakening. To "follow" Him means to walk the same path, to seek Him not in a geographic or physical sense, but within the self—where He already dwells.

> **(4.37–38)** “*Go then and preach the gospel of the Kingdom. Do not lay down any rules beyond what I appointed you, and do not give a law like the lawgiver lest you be constrained by it.*”

This radical instruction discourages legalism. Jesus separates Himself from the image of the lawgiver. His message is not about imposing new structures, but awakening to inner freedom. This is echoed in Paul’s statement, “All things are lawful for me, but not all things are beneficial” (1 Cor. 6:12). The disciples are warned not to create burdens where there are none, but to stay close to the simplicity of His gospel.

> **(4.39)** “*When He said this, He departed.*”

His physical departure marks the moment when spiritual maturity must take root in the disciples. The absence of the Savior becomes the test of inner transformation.

---

### **Mary the Consoler (Chapter 5)**

> **(5.1)** “*But they were grieved. They wept greatly, saying, ‘How shall we go to the Gentiles and preach the gospel of the Kingdom of the Son of Man? If they did not spare Him, how will they spare us?’*”

This moment of fear and grief is deeply human. The disciples feel the weight of their calling and the threat of rejection. Their anguish reflects the cost of following the Son of Man, and their uncertainty is understandable. This fear, however, is precisely the moment in which Mary steps forward—not just as a disciple, but as a leader and spiritual equal.

> **(5.2–3)** “*Then Mary stood up, greeted them all, and said to her brethren, ‘Do not weep and do not grieve nor be irresolute, for His grace will be entirely with you and will protect you. But rather, let us praise His greatness, for He has prepared us and made us into Men.’*”

Mary acts as the true consoler. Like Jesus before her, she greets the disciples with peace, reassurance, and strength. She reminds them of grace, divine protection, and the greatness of the Savior—not in distant theological abstractions but in personal transformation.

> **“For He has prepared us and made us into Men.”**

This phrase, powerful in both Greek and Coptic, uses the generic term "Men" not in the gendered sense but to signify “true Human beings.” This parallels the Gospel of Mary’s vision of full personhood realized in Christ. The Gospel of Thomas makes a related statement about becoming “male,” which there implies becoming spiritual and whole. In contrast, the Gospel of Mary uses “Man” to refer to a restored humanity—both male and female disciples are made “Men,” meaning *Anthropos*, the universal Human.

This also sheds light on Jesus' words in Chapter 4:  

> **“For the Son of Man is within you.”**

The Son of Man, the archetypal Human, is not an external Savior to be watched for “here or there,” but a new form of being growing from within. Mary’s consoling words reveal that Jesus has made the disciples into reflections of that Son of Man—they now carry the image and vocation of the true Human.

> **(5.4)** “*When Mary said this, she turned their hearts to the Good, and they began to discuss the words of the Savior.*”

Mary's leadership brings the disciples back to their center. She does not dominate or replace the teaching of the Savior, but calls them to remember and interpret His words. In doing so, she reflects the feminine aspect of Wisdom (Sophia) found in texts such as the *Gospel of Philip*, where Wisdom is said to be “barren” and a “pillar of salt” when misunderstood, yet fruitful when she gives birth through the Holy Spirit.

---

### **Conclusion: Mary as Sophia-Wisdom**

In this passage, Mary Magdalene is not just a witness but a guide. She embodies the Spirit of Wisdom—the Consoler, the Advocate—reminding the disciples of who they are and what they carry within. She functions as a spiritual counterpart to the Logos, the Word, echoing the role of Sophia who dwells in silence with the Father in texts like *The Valentinian Exposition*:  

> “He dwells alone in silence, and silence is tranquility... His Pair is Silence… And he possessed the All dwelling within him.”

Mary, through her silence and then her word, awakens the disciples to their true selves. This is no mere emotional comfort—it is initiation. She is a model of Gnostic insight and courage, and her role affirms that the Son of Man, the image of the true Human, is within all who follow after Him.

---

Chapter 5

1) But they were grieved. They wept greatly, saying, How shall we go to the Gentiles and preach the gospel of the Kingdom of the Son of Man? If they did not spare Him, how will they spare us?

2) Then Mary stood up, greeted them all, and said to her brethren, Do not weep and do not grieve nor be irresolute, for His grace will be entirely with you and will protect you.

3) But rather, let us praise His greatness, for He has prepared us and made us into Men.

4) When Mary said this, she turned their hearts to the Good, and they began to discuss the words of the Savior.

The Apostles think that they will not be successful in preaching the message they will suffer the same fate as the messiah himself

1) But they were grieved. They wept greatly, saying, How shall we go to the Gentiles and preach the gospel of the Kingdom of the Son of Man? If they did not spare Him, how will they spare us?

Mary now assumes the main position she acts just as the Messiah did before her embracing the Apostles and encouraging them.

2) Then Mary stood up, greeted them all, and said to her brethren, Do not weep and do not grieve nor be irresolute, for His grace will be entirely with you and will protect you.

3) But rather, let us praise His greatness, for He has prepared us and made us into Men.

Then Mary stood up. She greeted them all, addressing her brothers and sisters, "Do not weep and be distressed nor let your hearts be irresolute. For his grace will be with you all and will shelter you. Rather we should praise his greatness, for he has prepared us and made us true Human beings."

for He has prepared us and made us into Men
for he has prepared us and made us true Human beings

Men like the English both Greek and Coptic words have a term "man" which can indicate either a male individual or humanity a a whole and a term "male" which can only refer  to masculine-gendered person. In the Gospel of Thomas  the "term" is male in the Gospel of Mary it is "man" since in the  the Gospel of Mary  both men and women  disciples are made "men" the intent is generic (human beings )

This should be understood in light of Jesus's words that For the Son of Man is within you. his saving work allows us to follow after him the way to the true human existence and to find within ourselves the son of man as our own new self 

Sige as the Higher Sophia: Silence, Depth, and Wisdom in Valentinian Thought

### Sige as the Higher Sophia: Silence, Depth, and Wisdom in Valentinian Thought

In Valentinian cosmology, one encounters a rich and intricate vision of divine emanations, in which abstract realities are personified as Aeons, cascading forth from the ineffable source. Among these, **Sige** (Silence) holds a place of unique significance. Often misunderstood or conflated with Sophia herself, Sige is, in truth, the **higher Wisdom**, embodying the transcendent and ineffable aspect of the divine that stands in perfect harmony with **Bythos** (Depth), the primordial Monad.

The **Nag Hammadi text, The Valentinian Exposition**, affirms this relationship:  

> “They have known him who is, the Father, that is, the Root of the All, the Ineffable One who dwells in the Monad. He dwells alone in silence, and silence is tranquility since, after all, he was a Monad and no one was before him. He dwells in the Dyad and in the Pair, and his Pair is Silence. And he possessed the All dwelling within him.”

In this exposition, Sige is not merely an Aeon among others but the consort of Bythos himself — the Dyad completing the Monad’s existence. She is the **Silence** within which the unknowable Father remains hidden, a stillness before creation, the unspoken Word before utterance. This profound quietude is what allows the fullness, or **Pleroma**, to emanate in ordered harmony.  

From their union emanate a series of Aeons, including **Sophia** (Wisdom). In this system, Sige stands higher than Sophia, representing what might be termed the **higher Wisdom**, while Sophia, particularly as she appears in later narratives, represents a **lower, derivative form of Wisdom** that descends into limitation and disorder.

This distinction is further emphasized in the **Gospel of Philip**, where Wisdom is associated with both purity and corruption, fullness and loss:

> “The apostles said to the disciples, ‘May our entire offering be provided with salt.’ For they called [wisdom] salt. Without it an offering is unacceptable. Wisdom is barren, [with no] children, and so she is called [the pillar] of salt. Whenever…the holy spirit…, and she has many children.”

Here, Sophia is likened to **salt** — preservative and pure, yet barren. Salt, while essential, also marks the boundary between fertility and sterility. It preserves yet isolates, as seen in the image of Lot’s wife, turned into a pillar of salt. The implication is that Wisdom in its fallen form is lifeless, incapable of bearing true spiritual offspring apart from the Holy Spirit’s restoration.

The Gospel of Philip makes a further distinction:  

> “Echamoth is one thing and Echmoth, another. Echamoth is Wisdom simply, but Echmoth is the Wisdom of death, which is the one who knows death, which is called 'the little Wisdom.'”

In this way, **Echamoth** refers to the true, unfallen Wisdom (akin to Sige), while **Echmoth** represents Wisdom estranged from its source, now entangled in death and ignorance. The higher Sophia is thus Sige — the Silence from which all life emerges — whereas the lower Sophia becomes entangled in materiality through ignorance and desire.

This cosmology was harshly criticized by early Church Fathers such as **Irenaeus** in *Against Heresies*. Irenaeus rejected the Valentinian scheme of emanations and personified abstractions, arguing:

> “It is impossible that the thought (Ennoia) of any one, or his silence (Sige), should be understood apart from himself.”

Irenaeus viewed the Valentinian emanation system as speculative fiction, detaching attributes from God and thus undermining the simplicity and unity of the divine nature. In his mind, attributing independent existence to Silence or Depth resulted in theological confusion and a fragmented cosmology. For Irenaeus, this endangered the foundational Christian confession of one, simple, and unchanging God.

Yet, from a Valentinian perspective, these emanations are not divisions within the Godhead, but rather **expressions of divine attributes moving from the unknowable to the knowable, from Silence to Word**. **Sige**, as Silence, is essential because it preserves the mystery of the Godhead even as revelation unfolds. The moment of speaking (Logos) comes only after the stillness of Sige — mirroring the pattern of contemplation before creation.

The *Valentinian Exposition* confirms this sequence, describing the emanations of Intention, Persistence, Love, and Permanence — **all unbegotten** and dwelling within the ineffable Monad. This reflects a theology that honors both the transcendence and immanence of the divine: the ineffable Father remains veiled in Sige, even as the Pleroma is emanated through successive Aeons like Sophia.

In conclusion, Sige represents not merely the absence of sound, but the fullness of potential, **the stillness from which all things are born**. As the higher Sophia, she embodies Wisdom in its perfect, unmanifest form, distinct from the fallen Sophia who, in seeking to grasp the unknowable, falls into error. While Irenaeus regarded these ideas as dangerous heresy, they present a profound meditation on the tension between knowing and unknowing, speech and silence, fullness and emptiness. In this sense, Valentinian cosmology offers not merely speculative theology but a spiritual psychology: **the need for the soul to dwell first in silence before it can comprehend wisdom**.

---

The Tripartite of Yaldabaoth

**Welcome to Pleroma Pathways apocalyptic and mystic Christianity where we explore esoteric and apocalyptic texts.**


**The Tripartite of Yaldabaoth**


In the Sethian traditions of early Gnostic thought, Yaldabaoth stands as the archon of the material realm — a blind, arrogant, and ignorant ruler. His influence extends not just over the physical world but over the very patterns of human thought and culture. In *The Apocryphon of John*, we learn that Yaldabaoth bears three distinct names, each reflecting a key aspect of his flawed nature: Yaldabaoth, Sakla, and Samael. These names reveal the tripartite character of this false ruler and how his influence seeps into the material and human condition.


**Yaldabaoth (Son of Chaos) — Ego**


The first name, **Yaldabaoth**, signifies the **Ego** — the arrogant, self-centered nature that believes itself to be the highest authority. In the Gnostic narrative, Yaldabaoth is born of Sophia without the Father’s consent, creating a disordered being with a counterfeit authority. In his arrogance, he declares, *“I am God and there is no other beside me,”* revealing his blindness and inflated self-importance. This characteristic of Yaldabaoth finds a parallel in human beings when pride, selfish ambition, and egocentrism take root. It is the false sense of separation from the divine fullness (Pleroma) and others, leading to conflict, alienation, and a hunger for domination.


**Sakla (Fool) — Ignorance**


The second name, **Sakla**, meaning **Fool**, represents **Ignorance**. This is not mere lack of information, but a profound blindness to the truth of existence, the nature of God, and the spiritual realities beyond the material. Yaldabaoth, as Sakla, does not understand the source from which he came, nor the fullness beyond his domain. He mistakes himself for the ultimate authority, perpetuating ignorance among those trapped in his world. This ignorance is the root of confusion, idolatry, and the acceptance of inferior images of divinity. In the material world, Sakla’s ignorance is manifest in false teachings, deception, and spiritual blindness.


**Samael (Blind God) — False Image of God**


The third name, **Samael**, means **Blind God**. This represents the **False Image of God** that Yaldabaoth projects to humanity. He is blind not only physically but spiritually, unable to perceive the Pleroma or the True God. Samael’s counterfeit image is one of wrath, domination, and jealousy — a tyrannical deity who demands fear and obedience rather than offering true knowledge and liberation. Many in the world mistake this false image for the true God, perpetuating religious systems based on fear, guilt, and control rather than love, wisdom, and freedom.


These three aspects — Ego, Ignorance, and False Image — permeate the material world and human mind because Yaldabaoth is the architect of this order. Recognizing these forces is the first step toward liberation.


**The Holy Spirit, the Son, and the Father: The Antidote to the Tripartite**


To overcome the influence of Yaldabaoth and his tripartite deception, the Gnostic tradition calls us to reconnect with the Holy Spirit, the Son, and the Father — Sophia, the Logos, and the Monad. These are not merely abstract principles but living realities that dwell within the Pleroma and can manifest within those seeking gnosis.


**The Holy Spirit — Sophia, Divine Wisdom**


The **Holy Spirit**, identified with **Sophia**, is **Divine Wisdom**. It is through Sophia that we cultivate good works, a loving heart, and humility, thereby dissolving the Ego (Yaldabaoth). Paul in Galatians speaks of the fruits of the Spirit: *“Love, joy, peace, long-suffering, kindness, goodness, faith, meekness, temperance: against such there is no law.”* These qualities oppose the arrogance and self-centeredness of Yaldabaoth. Sophia restores harmony between the beliver and the divine, making space for true spiritual growth by subduing the ego.


**The Son — Logos, Divine Reason**


The **Son**, the **Logos**, is **Divine Reason** and the Revealer of mysteries. He unveils the hidden teachings and reveals the **true image of God**, which stands in opposition to Samael’s false projection. As Colossians declares: *“Who is the image of the invisible God, first-born of all creation.”* The Logos dispels illusion, dismantles the counterfeit deity’s mask, and guides seekers to perceive the true character of the Father — one of love, light, and truth. By embracing the Logos, the distorted images are corrected, and Samael’s dominion over perception is broken.


**The Father — Monad, First Principle**


At the highest level is the **Father**, the **Monad**, the **First Principle**. It is from the Father that all true gnosis (knowledge) proceeds, and it is through gnosis that **Ignorance (Sakla)** is destroyed. The *Apocryphon of John* describes the Father: *“He is an aeon-giving aeon. He is life-giving life. He is a blessedness-giving blessed one. He is knowledge-giving knowledge.”* The Monad is the source of all being, transcending the material and its illusions. Through union with the Father, ignorance is dissolved, and the person awakens from the sleep of ignorance to the full knowledge of the truth.


**Conclusion**


The Tripartite of Yaldabaoth — Ego, Ignorance, and False Image — represents the barriers to divine knowledge and spiritual freedom in this world. These forces keep humanity enslaved in a lesser reality, mistaking the counterfeit for the genuine. Yet through Sophia (Holy Spirit), the Logos (Son), and the Monad (Father), these barriers can be overcome. Wisdom humbles the ego, Reason reveals the truth, and Gnosis dispels ignorance. Together they form a path back to the Pleroma, where fullness, light, and incorruptibility dwell eternally. In understanding and combating the tripartite deception, we reclaim our rightful place as children of the light, destined for restoration and resurrection in the age to come.






The Tripartite of Yaldabaoth.


Ego, Ignorance, False Image of God: These are three characteristics of the Yaldabaoth.

The Apocryphon of John: “This gloomy ruler has three names: the first name is Yaldabaoth, the second is Sakla, the third is Samael.”

Yaldabaoth (Son of Chaos), Sakla (Fool), Samael (Blind God).

Yaldabaoth is the Ego, Sakla is ignorance and Samael is the false image of God (what some people believe to be the true God but isn`t). These characteristics manifest in the material world since the demiurge created and controls it and these characteristics even manifest in ourselves.

So how do we combat these three? Through the Holy Spirit, the Son and the Father.

The Holy Spirit is Sophia (Divine Wisdom) who helps us to do good works, have a good heart and eliminate our Ego (Yaldabaoth). Galatians: “And the fruit of the Spirit is: Love, joy, peace, long-suffering, kindness, goodness, faith, meekness, temperance: against such there is no law”

The Son is the Logos (Divine Reason) who reveals the mysteries, the secret teachings and shows us the true image of God (destroying Samael). Colossians: “who is the image of the invisible God, first-born of all creation.”

The Father is the Monad (The First Principle) who gives gnosis and thus destroys ignorance (Sakla). The Apocryphon of John: “He is an aeon-giving aeon. He is life-giving life. He is a blessedness-giving blessed one. He is knowledge-giving knowledge.”

Greek philosophers who rejected the immortality of the soul

Greek Philosophers Who Rejected the Immortality of the Soul  

Groups like Jehovah’s Witnesses and Christadelphians often claim that Christianity was influenced by Greek philosophy during the second and third centuries AD. They argue that Greek philosophy introduced the idea of the immortality of the soul into Christian theology. While it is true that some Greek philosophers, such as Plato, taught the immortality of the soul—a view that contradicts biblical teachings—the claim that all Greek philosophy endorsed this idea is incorrect.  

In reality, Greek philosophical thought was diverse. Many Greek philosophers rejected the notion of an immortal soul and instead embraced materialist views, teaching that the soul was a physical entity that ceased to exist upon death. Furthermore, Greek philosophy had already influenced certain Jewish writings long before Christianity. This can be seen in texts like *4 Maccabees*, *The Wisdom of Solomon*, and the works of Philo of Alexandria. The real issue is not simply "Greek philosophy" as a whole, but rather which Greek philosophical ideas influenced Christian theology. While the Platonic view of an immortal soul became dominant in later Christian thought, it was not the only perspective available.  

### Democritus and the Material Soul  

Democritus, an early Greek philosopher and one of the founders of atomism, believed that everything in the universe was composed of tiny, indivisible particles called atoms. This included the soul (*psuchê*), which he saw as consisting of particularly fine, smooth, and round atoms—similar to fire. According to Democritus, these soul atoms were more active and mobile than the atoms that made up the body.  

#### Materialism and the Soul  

- Democritus rejected supernatural explanations for the soul. Instead, he argued that the soul was entirely material and functioned as part of the natural world.  

- The soul atoms were responsible for motion, thought, and sensation. They interacted with the body’s heavier atoms to generate life and perception.  

#### Death and the Dissolution of the Soul  

- Since the soul was made of atoms, it could not exist apart from the body.  

- At death, the fine atoms of the soul dispersed and scattered, causing the complete cessation of thoughts.  

- This idea was later expanded upon by the Epicureans, who argued that the fear of death was irrational because death simply meant non-existence.  

### Epicurus: Death Is Nothing to Us  

Epicurus, who lived in the fourth century BCE, was heavily influenced by Democritus but made several refinements to atomist thought. He argued that the soul was not a divine or immortal entity but rather a material structure composed of extremely fine atoms.  

#### The Soul is Made of Atoms  

- Like Democritus, Epicurus taught that the soul consisted of atoms, but he identified them as even finer and more mobile than ordinary matter.  

- He compared the soul’s composition to a combination of breath (*pneuma*) and heat (*thermê*), suggesting that it was a subtle but entirely physical substance.  

#### The Soul is Mortal  

- Epicurus rejected the idea that the soul could exist apart from the body.  

- When a person dies, the soul atoms disperse, leading to the end of consciousness.  

- Since the soul and body are inseparably linked, there is no afterlife, no punishment, and no continued existence.  

#### Death Should Not Be Feared  

One of Epicurus’ most famous teachings was the *Tetrapharmakos* or "Four-Part Remedy," which helped his followers achieve peace of mind (*ataraxia*). One of these principles stated:  

- **Death is nothing to us**—When we exist, death is not; when death exists, we are not.  

- This means that death is a state of non-existence, and since we will never experience it, there is no reason to fear it.  

#### The Soul and Perception  

- Epicurus argued that the soul was responsible for sensation (*aisthesis*) and thought.  

- The most refined part of the soul, responsible for reasoning and emotions, was located in the chest (*to hegemonikon*).  

- The rest of the soul, spread throughout the body, controlled basic functions such as movement and perception.  

### Other Philosophers Who Rejected an Immortal Soul  

Epicurus was not alone in his materialist view of the soul. Several other Greek and Roman thinkers rejected the idea of an immortal, supernatural soul.  

#### 1. Lucretius (99–55 BCE) – Roman Epicurean  

- Lucretius, a follower of Epicurus, wrote *De Rerum Natura*, in which he expanded on the idea that the soul was composed of fine, fast-moving atoms.  

- He argued that when a person dies, the soul atoms disperse into the environment, making consciousness impossible after death.  

#### 2. Anaxagoras (500–428 BCE) – Pre-Socratic Philosopher  

- Anaxagoras proposed that *nous* (mind or soul) was a fine, material substance that organized the universe.  

- While his ideas were not explicitly atomic, he suggested that thought and consciousness were tied to physical processes.  

#### 3. Stoics (3rd century BCE onward)  

- The Stoics believed that the soul was a kind of *pneuma* (breath-like force) composed of fire and air.  

- Although some Stoics thought the soul might persist for a time after death, they did not argue for its immortality in a Platonic sense.  

#### 4. Strato of Lampsacus (335–269 BCE) – Aristotelian Materialist  

- Strato, a successor of Aristotle, argued that the soul was a physical phenomenon governed by the movement of fine particles.  

- He rejected supernatural explanations and believed that consciousness ceased upon death.  

#### 5. Thomas Hobbes (1588–1679 CE) – Early Modern Materialist  

- Although not an ancient philosopher, Hobbes continued the tradition of materialist thought by arguing that the soul was simply the physical functions of the body.  

- He denied any supernatural existence of the soul and viewed human cognition as purely mechanical.  

### Biblical Support for a Mortal Soul  

Interestingly, the Bible aligns more with the materialist view of the soul than with Plato’s belief in an immortal, separable soul. In *Ezekiel 18:4*, God declares:  

> "The soul that sins shall die."  

This statement directly contradicts the idea of an immortal soul that continues to exist after death. Instead, it supports the notion that the soul is tied to the body and ceases to exist upon death, similar to the views held by Democritus, Epicurus, and other Greek materialists.  

### Conclusion  

The claim that Greek philosophy universally promoted the immortality of the soul is incorrect. While Plato’s view became dominant in later Christian theology, several Greek philosophers—such as Democritus, Epicurus, and Lucretius—rejected the notion of an immortal soul. These thinkers believed that the soul was a material substance that perished with the body, a perspective that aligns more closely with biblical teachings than with later Platonic or Christian dualism. Thus, the debate over the soul’s nature was not a simple matter of "Greek philosophy vs. biblical thought," but rather a question of which Greek philosophical traditions influenced Christianity.

https://youtu.be/HpzqBEPU18o

ON THE VARIOUS KINDS OF KNOWLEDGE** *By Clement of Alexandria

CHAPTER XVII -- ON THE VARIOUS KINDS OF KNOWLEDGE.

As, then, Knowledge (episthmh) is an intellectual state, from which results the act of knowing, and becomes apprehension irrefragable by reason; so also ignorance is a receding impression, which can be dislodged by reason. And that which is overthrown as well as that which is elaborated by reason, is in our power. Akin to Knowledge is experience, cognition (eidhsis), Comprehension (sunesis), perception, and acquaintance (gnosis). Cognition (eidhsis) is the knowledge of universals by species; and Experience is comprehensive knowledge, which investigates the nature of each thing. Perception (noesis) is the knowledge of intellectual objects; and Comprehension (sunesis) is the knolwedge of what is compared, or a comparison that cannot be annulled, or the faculty of comparing the objects with which Judgment and Knowledge are occupied, both of one and each and all that goes to make up one reason. And Acquaintance (gnosis) is the knowledge of the thing in itself, or the knowledge which harmonizes with what takes place. Truth is the knowledge of the true; and the mental habit of truth is the knowledge of the things which are true. Now knowledge is constituted by the reason, and cannot be overthrown by another reason. What we do not, we do not either from not being able, or not being willing -- or both. Accordingly we don't fly, since we neither can nor wish; we do not swim at present, for example, since we can indeed, but do not choose; and we are not as the Lord, since we wish, but cannot be: "for no disciple is above his master, and it is sufficient if we be as the master:" not m essence (for it is impossible for that, which is by adoption, to be equal in substance to that, which is by nature); but [we are as Him] only in our having been made immortal, and our being conversant with the contemplation of realities, and beholding the Father through what belongs to Him.

Therefore volition takes the precedence of all; for the intellectual powers are ministers of the Will. "Will," it is said, "and thou shalt be able." And in the Gnostic, Will, Judgment, and Exertion are identical. For if the determinations are the same, the opinions and judgments will be the same too; so that both his words, and life, and conduct, are conformable to rule. "And a right heart seeketh knowl edge, and heareth it." "God taught me wisdom, and I knew the knowledge of the holy."

---

## **ON THE VARIOUS KINDS OF KNOWLEDGE**  

**By Clement of Alexandria**

Welcome to Pleroma Pathways apocalyptic and mystic Christianity, where we explore esoteric and apocalyptic texts.

In this reflection on Clement of Alexandria’s teachings, we consider his understanding of the nature of knowledge (*epistēmē*) and its various forms. Clement, the great Alexandrian teacher, places knowledge at the center of the spiritual and intellectual journey, examining its relationship to reason, will, and the contemplation of divine realities.

Clement opens with the foundational definition:  

**“As, then, Knowledge (epistēmē) is an intellectual state, from which results the act of knowing, and becomes apprehension irrefragable by reason; so also ignorance is a receding impression, which can be dislodged by reason.”**  

Knowledge, for Clement, is not merely an accumulation of facts but a firm, reasoned apprehension, unshaken by competing arguments. Ignorance, on the other hand, is described as an unstable impression, subject to displacement through the discipline of reasoning.

He continues:  

**“And that which is overthrown as well as that which is elaborated by reason, is in our power.”**  

This statement affirms human responsibility in both embracing truth and rejecting error. Knowledge is not forced upon anyone but must be pursued and accepted willingly.

Clement then categorizes forms of intellectual apprehension, identifying a hierarchy of understanding.  

**“Akin to Knowledge is experience, cognition (eidēsis), comprehension (synesis), perception (noēsis), and acquaintance (gnōsis).”**  

These terms, though related, are distinct in scope and operation.

**Cognition (eidēsis)** is explained as **“the knowledge of universals by species”** — an intellectual grasp of the general through its specific instances. It is the way in which categories are understood by examining the particular cases that express them.

**Experience**, on the other hand, is **“comprehensive knowledge, which investigates the nature of each thing.”** This kind of knowledge is empirical, grounded in the careful observation and investigation of reality. While cognition handles general concepts, experience deals with things as they are encountered and known by interaction.

**Perception (noēsis)** is the **“knowledge of intellectual objects.”** This surpasses material phenomena and turns the intellect toward what is immaterial and abstract — matters pertaining to reason, order, and eternal principles.

**Comprehension (synesis)** is defined as **“the knowledge of what is compared, or a comparison that cannot be annulled, or the faculty of comparing the objects with which judgment and knowledge are occupied, both of one and each and all that goes to make up one reason.”** It is the act of synthesizing different pieces of knowledge, weighing them in relation to one another, and forming judgments that lead to a cohesive understanding.

**Acquaintance (gnōsis)** is described as **“the knowledge of the thing in itself, or the knowledge which harmonizes with what takes place.”** It is the culmination of knowledge, where one no longer merely perceives or compares, but knows the thing as it is, in harmony with the reality it represents.

Clement then declares:  

**“Truth is the knowledge of the true; and the mental habit of truth is the knowledge of the things which are true.”**  

Truth is not subjective nor changeable but a condition of the mind shaped by conformity to reality. To have knowledge of the true is to have a stable, reasoned apprehension of things as they are.

He continues:  

**“Now knowledge is constituted by the reason, and cannot be overthrown by another reason.”**  

This means true knowledge, once rightly apprehended, is firm and not vulnerable to mere argument or rhetorical persuasion.

Clement reflects on the limits and possibilities of human action:  

**“What we do not, we do not either from not being able, or not being willing — or both. Accordingly, we don't fly, since we neither can nor wish; we do not swim at present, for example, since we can indeed, but do not choose; and we are not as the Lord, since we wish, but cannot be: 'for no disciple is above his master, and it is sufficient if we be as the master.'”**  

Here, Clement acknowledges both the limitations of human nature and the aspirations toward likeness with the Lord, not in essence, but in immortality and contemplation.

He clarifies:  

**“Not in essence (for it is impossible for that, which is by adoption, to be equal in substance to that, which is by nature); but [we are as Him] only in our having been made immortal, and our being conversant with the contemplation of realities, and beholding the Father through what belongs to Him.”**  

The distinction is clear: human beings may be granted immortality and the capacity for contemplating realities, yet they do not share the same essence as the One begotten by nature.

Finally, Clement elevates the role of volition:  

**“Therefore volition takes the precedence of all; for the intellectual powers are ministers of the Will. 'Will,' it is said, 'and thou shalt be able.'”**  

The act of willing precedes knowledge, judgment, and action. In the perfected person — the Gnostic — **“Will, Judgment, and Exertion are identical.”** This means that the internal deliberations and external actions are in harmony, reflecting a life governed by reason and divine contemplation.

As it is written:  

**“And a right heart seeketh knowledge, and heareth it.”**  

And again:  

**“God taught me wisdom, and I knew the knowledge of the holy.”**

In Clement’s view, true knowledge is inseparable from divine instruction, the will to learn, and the cultivation of a life aligned with what is true and real